EST OF WILLIAM WALKER 



F 1526 



HON. JOM SLIDELL, OF. LOUISIANA, 

ON THE 

NEUTRALITY LAWS. 



DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, APRIL 8, 1858. 



Mr. SLIDELL. I ask the Senate to take up the next special order. 

The motion was. agreed to ; and the Senate, as in committee of the whole, resumed the 
'Consideration of the joint resolution [S. No. 7] directing the presentation of a medal to Com- 
modore Hiram Paulding ; the bill [S. No. 85J supplementary to the act entitled " An act in 
addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to re- 
peal certain acts therein mentioned," approved April 20, 1818 ; the resolution reported by 
Mr. Mason, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, in regard to the seizure of William 
Walker ; and Mr. Slidell's amendment to these resolutions. 

Mr. SLIDELL." As the resolution of the senator from Wisconsin, 
as well as the report of the Committee on Foreign Kelations, is now 
"under consideration, I will first proceed to explain the reasons why I 
shall vote for the amendment of my friend from Mississippi, and then 
present my vi?ws generally on the suhject of our neutrality laws, and 
especially on the necessity of such a modification as is proposed hy the 
amendment I have offered to the resolutions of the committee. 

I presume that the senator from Wisconsin, in offering his resolu- 
tion for the presentation of a medal to Commodore Paulding, did itj 
rather to have an occasion to express his individual approhation of the 
-conduct of that officer, than with any hope of his proposition ohtain- 
iing the sanction of the Senate. The medal has heretofore heen given 
only as a recompense for gallant service^ accompanied by some degree of 
personal danger. To this rule I think there can be found no" exception!' 
The resolution seeks to confer it for gallant and judicious service. 
The senator from Wisconsin will scarcely claim that there was anj*^ 
• rv. remarkable display of gallantry in the capture of one hundred 
und fifty men, armed with rifles only, encamped on a sandy beach, 
directly under the batteries of a squadron mounting sixty or seventy, 
heavy guns, and served by at least eight hundred men. Was his^' 
conduct judicious? This question presents a double aspect : Was th(^' 
capture of Walker authorized either by his instructions, or by the«> 
law of nations ? or, if by neither, were the circumstances such as tof 
justify the exercise of a remedy above and beyond law, for effecting a 
high and useful purpose ? I admire the man who, in great emergen* 



(. ^^ 



^•CB, «c.. ,^ lou. niposes upott 

Pirn; butlieTo^®.^ responsibility whicli his p^ie vei iict of public- 
sentiment. The\^^/ix2ys_p6ril. H^must abiifring instincts in such 
questions. If he be right, he will be sustained and applauded ; if 
not, he must bear the consequences of his want of judgment and dis- 
cretion. The masses will never be severe when the error proceeds 
from excessive zeal in the performance of a supposed duty. 

It is not pretended that the capture of Walker, on the territory of 
Nicaragua, was justified by the instructions given to Paulding directly. 
Those to Lieutenant Almy of 12th October, expressly confine him to 
the prevention of the landing of any military expedition in any part 
of Mexico or Central America. These instructions were, of course, 
known to Commodore Paulding; indeed, he expressly admits, in his 
letter of 15th December, that he had gone beyond his instructions. 
He says: "I am sensible of the. responsibility I have incurred, and 
confidently look to the government for my justification." Were the 
circumstances so grave and urgent as to justify the Commodore in as- 
suming the responsibility of exceeding his instructions? Clearly not. 
Walker had with him one hundred and fifty men, without artillery, 
and with a very limited stock of provisions ; his arrival had produced 
no other feeling than that of alarm among the people of Nicaragua 
and Costa Eica. No aid could be expected from them, and all rein- 
forcements and supplies from the United States were effectually cut 
off. In a few weeks his motley band, composed mainly of desperate 
adventurers, with a few enthusiastic and misguided striplings, would 
have deserted him, and, probably, appealed to the American squadron 
for protection and subsistence. Walker would have returned, for the 
third time, to the country whose allegiance he had renounced and 
whose hospitality he had abused, a broken down and harmless Quix- 
ote. None of the false sympathy which has since been enlisted in his 
favor would have been excited ; he would have wandered about for a 
while, complaining of the administration and boasting of what he 
would have achieved had he been allowed to carry out his schemes, 
without the interference of the executive, and, perhaps, have settled 
down at last in the pursuit of an honest livelihood. Paulding has, 
for the time, succeeded, in the eyes of many of our people, in invest- 
ing him with the martyr's crown — and pseudo-martyrs have, in all 
^^ges, found devotees to worship at their shrine. 

In speaking thus of William Walker, I know that I shall bring 
upon myself the violent denunciation of certain presses, and perhaps 
shock the honest prejudices of many who, without examination or 
reflection, have approved his course, and admired his character.* 

*The new Orleans Delta has insinuated that the few words I said on the 28th January, in 
relation to this subject, were elicited by an attack previously made by him on me, and were 
uttered in a spirit of recrimination. Now, the only occasion on which I have been honored 
by the notice of that gentleman, that 1 am aware of, is said to have been in liis speech made 
at Mobile on 25tli January. I have the report of tliat speech, as published in the Mercury 
on tlie following day. In that report my name is not mentioned ; but, after Walker's arrival 
at New Orleans, and conference with his advisers there, he publislied in the Delta his amended 
Tersion of it, in which my name was used. This was on the 29th January, the day after I 
bad spoken of him in the Senate. From this specimen of the fair dealing of the Delta, the 
iiiautli-piece of Walker and his prime ministers, the public may judge of the credence that 
iJiOuld attacii to anything that may be said by it of me. 



"^^^ 7/nan who can be deterred, "by such considerations, from express- 
^^ his opinions, has no business here ; he is unworthy of the high 
%st which has been confided to him. Who and what, then, is Wil- 
d^ Walker? I speak only of his career since he first undertook the 
Jl^^ion of regenerating Mexico and Central America. Except in 
■^4t connexion, I know nothing of him. I am willing to concede 
i^Mat he is a man of good education, fair intelligence,, gentlemanly 
habits, and, in private life, a man of irreproachable character. His 
first military enterprise was against Sonora ; he landed there with a 
handful of brave men, and failing to meet with any sympathetic re- 
sponse from the peoj)le, of whom he proclaimed himself the champion 
and liberator, he escaped, leaving most of his deluded followers to 
perish miserably. We next find him landing in Central America, 
where, having expensed the cause of one of the factions that divide 
and devastate that wretched country, of which revolution and anarchy 
have long been, and, with the mongrel race that now occupies it, will 
ever be, the normal condition, he succeeded, with the aid of repeated 
reinforcements from the United States, in making himself virtually 
the supreme authority of Nicaragua. Not contenting himself with 
the substance of power, he must needs have the title also ; by the con- 
venient farce of a popular election, played with the soothing accompa- 
niment of the bayonet, he became the President of the free and inde- 
pendent Eepublic of Nicaragua. He now, for the first time, had an op- 
portunity of displaying his qualities as a statesman. One of his earliest 
acts was to confiscate the valuable property of an association of Amerir 
can citizens, engaged in the transportation of passengers across the 
isthmus — a company that had rendered him the most essential service 
in conveying the troops and supplies that were necessary to the sup- 
port of his government. This new William the Conqueror next pro- 
ceeded to dispossess the ancient proprietors of their domains, dis- 
tributing them among his adherents. Among the recipients of these 
bounties, v^e find some whose civil services had secured to them this 
distinguished mark of presidential favor, and who, in the hope of per- 
fecting their titles, were since actively engaged in getting up his last 
expedition. iHs whole career, as President, was marked by rapine 
and blood. In this he but too faithfully carried out the programme 
of a military government, not transitory, but permanent, indicated 
by his letter to General Groicouria, of 12th August, 1856, quoted by 
the Senator from Maryland, and in w^hich he deputes him to solicit 
an English alliance, ' ' to cut the expanding and expansive Democracy 
of the North."* This, then, is the chosen instrument for the Ameri- 

* " Granada, August 12, 1856. 

" My Dear Genf.ral : I sent your credentials for Great Britain by General Cazeneau. 
They are ample, and will be, I hope, not without result. If you can open negfotiations with 
England, and secure for Nicaragua the port of San Juan d'^l Norte, you will efi'ect a great 
object. It will be a long step towards our end. Without San Juan del Norte, we lack what 
will be, in the end, indispensable to us — a naval force in the Carribbean sea. The commercial 
consequences of this possession are nothing in comparison with the naval and political results. 

" With your versatility and (if I may use the term) adaptability, I expect much to be done 
in England. You can do more than any American could possibly accomplish, because you 
can make the British Cabinet see that we are not engaged in any scheme for annexation] 
You can make them see that the only way to cut the expanding and expansive Democracy 
of the North, is by a powerful and compact southern federation, ba'ed on niililarii princi- 
ples.'' 



4 

canization of these benighted resjions ! I will not recapitulat^ti 



18- 

s 



various atrocities. Suffice it to say, that he, who was at first haillV 
as a deliverer by a portion of the people of Nicaragua, was soon '',:£ 
garded by its entire population with detestation ; whilst having.,^ 
his own folly, cut off all available sources of support from the Un.'VT 
States, he was but too happy to secure his own safety, and that of v 
miserable remnant of his followers, under the flag of the counfJ/ 
whose citizenship he had repudiated. We have the most conclusive 
evidence of not only the universal horror in which Walker himself, 
but also of the appalling dread in which his very name is held by the 
whole population of Central America, This evidence we find amply 
revealed in the fact that the internecine war, between Costa Rica and 
Nicaragua, which had been waged with so niuch bitterness for the 
last two years, was immediately brought to a close by his advent on 
their shores, and all their differences adjusted by a treaty of boundary 
and alliance ; and yet this man claims to be their liberator and re- 
generator ! 

As a soldier I believe that those who have served with him, and I 
have seen and conversed with many of them, claim for him no other 
qualities than personal bravery. This is the almost universal attri- 
bute of our people ; its absence is the very rare exception to a general 
rule; but in the higher acceptation of soldiership, foresight, combina- 
tion, distribution, and care of his troops, he had with him many 
superiors. In times of difficulty and danger, all looked to Henning- 
sen for the head to plan, while Walker was only the hand to execute. 
So soon as his escape was effected, with the duplicity and heartless- 
ness that has characterized all his actions, he assumes the tone of 
ilijured innocence, and reviles the man who had rescued him from 
certain captivity, and probably from an ignominious death. We have 
no authentic record of the number of American citizens who perished 
by the sword, disease, and famine, in this second expedition, but I 
have seen it estimated at between two and three thousand. If one 
may believe his boasts, thrice that number of Central Americans may 
be counted as his victims. No sooner has he set foot on his native 
land than he renews his machinations ; but in the hope of lulling the 
vigilance of the national authorities, on the 29th day of September, 
ISST, he addresses to the Secretary of State a letter, of which I will 
rfead the concluding portion : 

" So far as any violation, on my part, of the acta of Congress is concerned, I deny tbe 
charge with scorn and indignation. Having been received in the United States, when forced 
fot a time to leave Nicaragua, I have, in all respects, been obedient to its laws. And permit 
me to assure you that I shall not so far forget my duty as an officer of Nicaragua as to violate 
the laws of the United States while enjoying tbe rights of hospitality within its limits." 

I do not choose to stamp this declaration with the only epithet it 
deserves ; but it is entirely in keeping with the assertion contained in 
his letter of 30th November to Commodore Paulding, that he was 
''engaged in what your government admits to be a lawful under- 
tsiking." Immediately after giving this solemn assurance to the 
Secretary of State, he proceeded to New Orleans and there commenced 
his preparations for his third expedition. I can add nothing to the 
j ^ ^ - lucid exposition of this part of the case by the senator from"" Mary- 



iaui. The publication in the New Orleans papers the day after his 
departure of the names and rank of his oflficers and of the objects of 
hif expedition ; the false invoices and manifest of the lading of the 
F^^hion ; his detachment of fifty men at the mouth of the Colorado 
fo\'' the capture, by that detachment, of Fort Castillo ; the immediate 
establishment of his camp on his landing at Punta Arenas ; the arms, 
ammunition, and stores found there ; the assumption of the pompous 
title of commander-in-chief of the army of Nicaragua, forgetting, 
for the moment, the pretension, which he has since renewed, of being 
the lawful President of that republic ; all show so conclusively the 
object and character of his expedition, that it were an idle waste of 
words to dwell upon them. 

But we are not left to mere inference or newspaper statements to estab- 
lish the fact of a military expedition having been set on foot within 
the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, and of its having 
been carried on under the flag of the United States. Anderson and 
his men having abandoned Fort Castillo, surrendered themselves to our 
squadron, and were conveyed to Key West in the flag-ship. Eight or ten 
of the men who were there examined as witnesses, declared that they were 
enlisted at New Orleans to serve under Walker, that they all under- 
stood that there was to be some fighting, that all their expenses were 
paid from the time of their enlistment until they were put on board of 
the Fashion, in Mobile bay, that after they had been, at sea three or 
four days, a battalion of four companies, composed of about forty men 
each, was formed, with captains, lieutenants, and sergeants, and from 
that time the roll was regularly called, morning and evening, and rifles 
and bayonets, taken from the hold of the steamer, were distributed. 
The United States district judge, before whom the men were examined, 
thought it unnecessary to inquire into the question of jurisdiction as 
to what had occurred on the high seas, as there was sufiicient testi- 
mony to show the setting on foot of a military expedition at New Or- 
leans, and directed them to be conveyed thither for trial. I shall, in 
the course of my argument, show that in the absence of all proof of a 
violation of the statute at New Orleans or Mobile bay, the organiza- 
tion on the high seas, on board of a vessel carrying the American flag, 
was within the jurisdiction of the United States. 

I concur entirely with that portion of the report of the Committee 
on Foreign Kelations which sustains the views of the President in his 
message of Yth of January, of his rights and duties under the act of 
20th April, 1818, and asserts the legality of the instructions given to 
Commodore Paulding and Lieutenant Almy ; but I go further, and 
maintain that the power to seize the Fashion and arrest Walker was 
not confined to the high seas, but might be lawfully exercised in the 
waters of Nicaragua; and this position is, I think, essential to the 
full vindication of the course of the Executive, Captain Chatard was 
deprived of his command for having failed to prevent the landing of 
Walker, who passed under the stern of the Saratoga, while that ship 
was at anchor in the harbor of San Juan. Paulding is declared to 
have committed a grave error in having captured him on the soil of 
Nicaragua. Something has been said of the inconsistency of censuring 
Chatard for having done too little, and Paulding for having done too 



6 

mucli. I can see no ground for tlie charge ; wliile I am free to con- 
fess that I think the President's language too exculpatory of Paul- 
ding, and would have preferred to see him at once directing his recall. 
Although I have a good opinion of his ability and efficiency as an 
officer, under ordinary circumstances, he has shown himself unequal 
to the delicate and responsible duties of his late command. I say his 
late command ; for I understand that he, having been ordered home, 
has been relieved by Commodore Mcintosh. 

I will now proceed to show, as I hope, conclusively, that t,he Fashion 
might have been lawfully seized by Captain Chatard, and carried, 
with Walker and his armed followers, to Mobile. She sailed from 
Mobile with American papers, and under the American flag, on an 
illicit voyage. Tlie public and private vessels of the United States 
carry their nationality with them wherever they go ; they carry with 
them also their jurisdiction ; and many of the most esteemed writers 
on national law consider them as an extension of the territory. 
Azuni says : 

•' Finding that the commanders of armed vessels exercise the rights of sovereignty, even 
to the infliction of the penalty of death, in the ports and harborS of another sovereign, 
many authors, even Hubner among them, maintain that these vessels are to be considered as 
foreign territory." 

The penalty of death, under the sentence of courts-martial, held on 
board of our ships of war in foreign ports, has, I believe, been more 
than once inflicted in those ports ; and I doubt not that the senator 
from Texas will recollect that, in the waters of the United States, 
and, if I mistake not, in the river Mississippi, several men were 
hanged on board of a Texan ship of war. The maritime high court 
of France, in the case of the Sardinian steam-packet Carlo Alberto, 
August 6, 1832, held that 'Hhe flag of the sovereign is the sign of 
the nationality of a vessel ; and, by the law of nations, it carries with 
itself its nationality and its sovereignty. Every vessel, therefore, 
sailing under the lawful authority of a power is reputed to be a con- 
tinuation of the territory of that power." And in a supplementary 
decision in the same case, September 7, 1832, the court further held 
that " a vessel is a portion of the territory of the sovereign whose 
flag it bears." ''The commanders of public armed vessels," says 
one of the best approved authorities on this head, " have a super- 
visory right over the merchant vessels riding in those ports where 
they themselves cast anchor." — {De Bayneval, Droits de la Nature et 
des Gens.) 

The jurisdiction of a nation over its public vessels, even in foreign 
ports, is absolute and unqualified ; over its private vessels, the extent 
to which it may be exercised is not so well defined. The true princi- 
ple seems to be, that in everything not interfering with the public 
interests or the rights of individual citizens or denizens of the nation 
in whose ports she may be, the jurisdiction is complete, and generally 
exclusive. This was held by the French Council of State, in 1806, in 
two cases. I quote from Wheaton, page 155 : 

"The first case was that of the American merchant vessel, the Newton, in the port of 
Antwerp, when the American consul and the local authorities both claimed exclusive juris- 
diction over an assault committed by one of the seamen belonging to the crew against 
another, in the vessel's boat. The second was that of another American vessel, the Sally, 



in the port of Marseilles, where exclusive jurisdiction was claimed both by the local tri- 
bunals and by the American consul, as to a severe wound inflicted by the mate on one of 
the seamen, in the alleged exercise of discipline over the crew. The Council of State 
pronounced against the jurisdiction of the local tribunals and authorities in both cases, 
and assigned the following reasons for its decisions : 

" 'Considering that a neutral vessel cannot be indefinitely regarded as a neutral place, 
and that the protection granted to such vessels in the French ports cannot oust the terri- 
torial jurisdiction, so far as respects the public interests of the State ; tha^, consequently 
a neutral vessel admitted into the ports of the State is rightfully subject to the laws of 
the police of that place where she is received ; that her officers and crew are also amena- 
ble to the tribunals of the country for offences and torts committed by them, even on 
board the vessel, against other persons than those belonging to the same, as well as for 
civil contracts made with them ; but that, in respect to offences and torts committed on 
boai-d the vessel, by one of the officers and crew against another, the rights of the neutral 
power ought to be respected, as exclusively concerning the internal discipline of the ves- 
sel, in which the local authorities ought not to interfere, unless their protection is de- 
manded, or the peace and tranquility of the port is disturbed ; the Council of State is of 
•opinion that this distinction, indicated in the report of the grand judge, minister of jus- 
tice, and conformable to usage, is the onlj'- rule proper to be adopted in respect to this 
matter ; and applying this doctrine to the specific cases in which the consuls of the 
United States have claimed jurisdiction ; considering that one of these cases was that of an 
assault committed in the boat of the American ship Newton, by one of the crew upon 
another, and the other case was that of a severe wound inflicted by the mate of the 
American ship Sally, upon one of the seamen, for having made use of the boat without 
Jeave ; is of opinion that the jurisdiction claimed by the American consuls ought to be 
allowed, and the French tribunals prohibited from taking cognizance of these cases.' " 

But we may have, by our own statutes, an express recognition of 
the principle lor which I contend. The African slave trade never was 
-considered, and it is not now considered, contrary to the law of nations. 
It was not only tolerated, but encouraged, by the whole civilized 
world, until expressly prohibited by several nations to its own citizens ; 
and when now carried on_, under any flag, the ships of war of other 
nations can only interfere with it by authority of express treaty stipu- 
lations. Our first prohibitory act, passed 22d March, 1794, only 
applied to the traffic to foreign countries. The fourth section of the 
amendatory act of 4th January, 1804, declares that it shall be lawful 
for any of the commissioned vessels of the United States to seize and, 
take any vessels engaged in carrying on business or traffic contrary to 
the true intent and meaning of the act, and to apprehend and convey 
every person found on board of such vessel, being of the officers and 
crew thereof, to the civil authority in some one of the districts thereof, to 
be proceeded against in due course of law. Here there is no limita- 
tion of place of seizure. The act of 3d March, 1819, authorizes the 
President, ''whenever he shall deem it expedient, to cause any of the 
armed vessels of the United States to be employed to cruise on any 
of the coasts of the United States or Territories thereof, or of the 
coast of Africa, or elseivhere, when he may judge attempts may be 
made to carry on the slave trade by citizens or residents ; and to in- 
struct and direct the commanders of all armed vessels of the United 
States to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, all 
ships or vessels of the United States, loheresoever found, engaged in 
the slave trade ; and to cause to be apprehended and taken into custody 
every person found on board, being of the officers or crew thereof, 
and convey them to the civil authorities of the United States, to 
be proceeded against in due course of law in some of the districts 
thereof." 

Under this act, our ships of war have repeatedly seized, in the bays 



8 

and rivers of Africa, American vessels engaged in the slave tradey 
and sent them to the United States, where they have been condemned. 
No one has ever dreamed of invoking the law of nations to protect 
the vessel or their crews. It will be observed that, under these laws, 
the nationality of an officer or seaman will not protect him from pun- 
ishment ; it is, for the time, merged in that of the flag under which 
he sails. 

It is clear, that whether Walker had renounced his allegiance to 
the United States or not, whether he was or was not a citizen of 
Nicaragua, whether those who accompanied him were or were not 
American citi25ens, whether they had or had not, technically, organized 
as a military force before leaving the waters of the United States, is 
entirely immaterial ; the offence of carrying on a military expedition 
was a continuous onefrom the moment the Fashion received on board the 
arms for these peaceful emigrants, in Mobile bay. The facts I have 
before stated afford sufficient evidence of the purpose for which those 
men embarked ; but we have jjroof of the military organization — the 
most positive and direct — in the testimony of some of them, taken at 
Key West. 

Captain Chatard, then, failed in his duty, in not preventing the 
Fashion from landing Walker and his associates ; and I should not 
have been much disposed to blame him, if, in hot pursuit, as soon a& 
he discovered the character and objects of the men who had disem- 
barked from her, he had arrested them ; but the landing was effected! 
on the 25th November ; whili^t the arrest was not made until the 8tb 
December. Ample time had been afforded to the Nicaraguan author- 
ities to invoke the protection of our squadrdn. Had they done so, 
Commodore Paulding would have been fully justified in arresting 
Walker ; their silence would seem to authorize the inference that thej 
preferred to deal with him themselves. As it is, it would appear that 
Paulding's action was taken, rather under the -irritation produced by 
Walker's correspondence, than from any mature and well-considered 
judgment of his rights and duties on general principles, and the in- 
structions of his government. 

But these questions are all of very subordinate importance when 
compared with the policy of our neutrality laws, which, with the in- 
dulgence of the Senate, I will now proceed to examine with as much 
brevity as its great importance will admit. While I think the policy 
of these laws,, not only sound but indispensable for the preservation of 
our peaceful relations with foreign powers, I by no means recognize 
the position generally assumed, that they do no more than vindicate 
well-established principles of international law. They go much fur- 
ther ; they deprive our government of the faculty of doing that which 
all writers admit to be strictly consistent with neutrality — the granting 
to belligerents equal facilities, within our territory, for the enlistment 
of troops and fitting out of armed vessels within our territorial limits. 
There has been a prevailing error on this subject, in the public mind, 
from considering the statutory provisions of Great Britain and of the 
United States, the foreign enlistment bill, and our laws of 1794 and 
1818, as merely providing specific penalties for acts which before had 
been admitted to be violations of the law of nations. So far from 
this being the case, it has never been considered a violation of neutrality 



on the part of any nation to permit belligerents to enlist troops within 
its jurisdiction, unless the permission were granted to one of the 
belligerents exclusively. Vattal says, book 3, chapter •?, paragraph 
110: 

" The Switzers grant levies of troops to whom they please ; and no power has hithertO' 
thought fit to quarrel with them on that head. It must, however, be owned, that if those 
levies were considerable, and constituted the principal strength of ray enemy, while, without 
any substantial reason being alleged, I were absolutely refused all levies whatever, I should 
have just cause to consider that nation as leagued with my enemy ; and in this case, the care 
of my own safety would authorize me to treat her as such." 

* # « # * '< If the troops above alluded to were furnished to my enemy by the State • 
herself, and at her own expense, it would no longer be a doubtful question whether such as- 
sistance were incompatible with neutrality." 

Paragraph 118 : 

" A neutral nation preserves, towards both belligerent powers, the several relations which 
nature has instituted between nations." * * » «« gjje ought, therefore, as far as the public 
welfare will permit, equally to allow the subjects of both parties to visit her territories on 
busmess, and there to purchase provisions, horses, and in general, everything they stand in 
need of, unless she has, by a treaty of neutrality, promised to refuse to both parties such ar- 
ticles as are used in war. Amidst all the wars which disturb Europe, the Switzers preserve 
their territories in a state of neutrality. Every nation indiscriminately is allowed free access 
for the purchase of provisions, if the country has a surplus, and for that of horses, ammuni- 
tion, and arms." 

Paragraph 126 : 

" If a neutral State grants or refuses a passage to one of the parties at war, she ought, in 
like manner, to grant or refuse it to the other, unless a change of circumstances affords her 
substantial reasons for acting otherwise. Without such reasons, to grant to one party what 
she refuses to the other, would be a partial distinction, and a departure from the line of strict 
neutrality." 

Grotiug not only recognizes the correctness of this doctrine, but 
shows, by its existence in remote antiquity, that it is founded on simple 
rules of equity and good sense. He says, in his famous Treatise on 
on War and Peace : 

" It is the duty of neutrals to do nothing which may strengthen the side which has the 
warst cause, or which may impede the motions of him that is carrying on a just war, and in 
a doubtful case to act alike to both sides." 

He quotes with approbation the declaration of the Corcyrians to 
the Athenians that it was the duty of the Athenians, if they would 
be neutral, either to prevent the Corinthians from raising soldiers in 
Attica, or to allow them to do so. 

Bynkerschoeck argues at great length the question whether it is 
lawful to enlist men in the country of a friendly sovereign, and decides 
it affirmatively. He says : 

" It is certain that if a prince prohibits his subjects from transferring their allegiance, and 
entering into the army or navy of another country, such sovereign cannot, with propriety, 
enlist them into his service ; but when no such prohibition exists, (as is the case of most of 
the countries of Europe,) it is lawful, in my opinion, for the subject to abandon bis country, 
migrate into another, and then serve his new sovereign in a military capacity." * * * » 
" If, therefore, our subjects, whose assistance we do not want in time of war, and who are not 
prevented by any law from transferrmg their allegiance, may lawfully hire out their military 
services to a friendly prince, why may not, also, that friendly prince enlist soldiers in the ter- 
ritory of a friendly nation ? Why should it not be equally lawful to contract for the hiring of 
soldiers in the territory of a fiiend as to make any other contract, and carry on any kind of 
trade ?" * . • * * " I am of opinion, therefore, that the same law which obtains as 
to the purchase of implements of war, must apply in like manner to the enlistment of soldiers 
in the territory of a friendly nation, unless it should be expressly stipulated otherwise betweea 
the two sovereigns." 



10 

He states a case wliicli is peculiarly apposite in this connexion : 

"A difference took place in the year 1666 between the States General (of Holland) and the 
Governor General of the Spanish Netherlands. The States complained to him that the Bishop 
of Munster, with whom they were at war, had enlisted soldiers in the Spanish territories in 
the Low Countries. The Governor answered that he had not authorized him so to do, but 
that, if he had, there was nothing to prevent him, as Spain was neutral in the war ; and that 
the States General might exercise the same right if they pleased." 

Martiens says : 

" Every State has a right to give liberty to raise troops in its dominions, and may grant to 
one State what it refuses to another, in war or peace, without infringing its neutrality." 

His position has a sort of a tacit sanction in many of our treaties. 
We have frequently stipulated that our citizens should not engage in 
war on the ocean against the powers with whom we have made 
treaties ; but I think that I may safely assert that we have never, but 
once, bound ourselves to prevent enlistment for service on land. The 
exception to which I refer is to be found in the twenty-first article of 
the treaty made by Mr. Jay with G-reat Britain, on the 19th Novem- 
ber, 1794 ; but this article, among others, was expressly limited to 
twelve years, and has never been renewed or revived. 

The first treaty we find on this subject is that with the Netherlands, 
in 1782. It establishes that citizens of neither party shall take com- 
missions or letters of marque for arming any ships, from any prince 
or State with which the other is at war. The same provision is found 
in the treaty with Sweden, in 1783, and in that with Prussia, of 1785 ; 
and in many others that it would be tedious to enumerate. The last 
•cited treaty has an additional clause, which gives, by implication, the 
right for which I contend. It is in these words : 

" Nor shall either party hire, lend, or give any part of their naval or military force to the 
enemy of the other, to aid them offensively or defensively against tliat other." 

In the interpretation of public treaties, as well as in private con- 
tracts, this rule is recognized — expressio unius, exclusio alterius. The 
national force could not be employed, but individual action is not re- 
strained. . VV e then occupy this unfavorable position : while all nations 
may, without violation of neutrality, permit enlistments within their 
territory, for purposes hostile to us, we have deliberately tied our own 
hands and voluntarily deprived ourselves of one of the most efficient 
and legitimate means of carrying out our foreign policy. 

I might present a thousand examples of the armed intervention of 
organized bands of citizens of a neutral State, in the wars between 
belligerent nations, or in the civil wars of Europe and America, and 
this without being considered as a casus belli with the power whose 
citizens had thus intervened. Switzerland has at all times exercised 
this privilege, in permitting entire regiments and brigades to be en- 
listed within her tei-ritory for the service of foreign belligerent States; 
and the several cantons have frequently had their citizens regularly 
organized in the ranks of both the contending parties. Elizabeth 
permitted troops to be raised in 'England for the assistance of the 
people of the Netherlands, in their contest with Spain, although she 
was then at peace with that power, because they were absolved from 
their allegiance, and free to choose their own government. Charles I 
authorized six thousand men to be enlisted for G-ustavus Adolphus; 
and Major Dalgetty, immortalized by the author of Waverly, was but 



J 



11 



tlie type of hundreds of soldiers of fortune, who, in those days, lent 
their swords to the sovereign whose cause they espoused, either from 
political or religious sympathies, or because they offered the largest 
stipend. Far from being a cause of reproach, service in foreign wars 
was considered a graceful complement of the education of a gentle- 
man ; and in time of peace at home young men were encouraged to 
acquire military knowledge and experience wherever the hardest blows 
were to be exchanged. During the protracted struggle between Spain 
and her revolted colonies on this continent, several thousand men were 
raised in England to aid the revolutionists. An entire legion, com- 
manded by Gi-eneral Devereaux, completely organized, armed and 
equipped, sailed from England ; and, although its destination was 
proclaimed to all the world, met with no interruption from the gov- 
ernment. General Evans, then a member of Parliament from West- 
minster, and an officer of the British army, raised from five to six 
thousand troops in England, organized them under the title of the 
British Legion, and played a distinguished part in the Car list war ; 
he retained his commission and his seat in Parliament, and very many 
of his officers held commissions in the British army, and regularly 
received their half pay during the whole term of their service in Spain. 
Sir Robert Wilson was one of them, and at the same time held his 
seat in Parliament. 

During the Greek war of independence, and after the passage of our 
neutrality laws, levies of troops and contributions of money were 
openly made both in England and the United States. Two frigates 
were built in New York for the Greeks ; and the fund for equipping 
them falling short, one of them was purchased by our government — 
and this under authority of act of Congress — to enable the other to 
be despatched. In 1832, Captain Sartorius, of the British navy, was 
made a Portuguese admiral, and openly fitted out a considerable squad- 
ron, officered principally by gentlemen holding commissions in the 
British navy, and manned by British subjects, for the service of Don 
Pedro, in the war against Don Miguel. He was afterwards replaced 
by Charles Napier, then a captain in the British navy^, and since com- 
manding the Baltic fleet in the war with Eussia. Miguel's fleet was 
captured by him. A large land force, also recruited in England, took 
part in the war, under Sir Milly Doyle, M. P. Lord Lansdowne 
said, in the debate on the foreign enlistment bill, June, 1819 : 

" All history would bear him witness in asserting, that this was the first attempt made to 
establish tiie principle, that the subjects of one State could not, privately and individually, 
assist those of another, where their respective potentates were not at war. He would ven- 
ture to declare that, for the last four centuries, and down to 1787, when the Netherlands 
resisted Joseph II., there never was a period in which British subjects were not engaged in 
giving this succor, as individuals, to other States ; and he defied any man to show him in 
what instance any government had interfered to prevent them, in the mannfer now proposed. 
The active interference of British subjects in the service of foreign States was, therefore, not 
inconsistent with the doctrines of neut^alit5^" 

Lord Althorpe said, on the 16th April, 1823 : 

*« It was to be remarked that, until 1819, when this foreign enlistment bill was passed, ex- 
ceptmg as far as related to the statutes of George II., it had been considered that England 
might be strictly neutral without such a law ; and those who now supported it must contend 
that, from the Norman conquest downward, she had, in fact, maintained no real neutrality 
between the contending parties." 

But we have seen that England, whenever it suits her policy, not 



12 

only authorizes "but encourages her subjects to take part in foreign 
wars. She twice or thrice suspended the execution of the foreign en- 
listment law, and will do so again, whenever a sufficient motive 
offers. We alone have adopted the suicidal policy of so manacling 
ourselves that a law-abiding Executive cannot free us from our self- 
imposed fetters, although the best interests of the country may de- 
mand it. 

The act, then, of April, 1818, is not an enforcement of the law of 
nations, but it is a restraint upon what, without it, would have been 
lawful and, in many instances, meritorious action of our citizens. The 
only really free representative governments of the world have thought 
proper to, pass laws preventing the levying of armed bodies of men 
within their territory for the purpose of waging war against States 
with which they are at peace. Why ? Because in these countries, 
in the absence of such laws, the executive would be without power to 
prevent the fitting out of any expedition, however much its objects 
might conflict with the interests of the nation or the policy of the 
government. These expeditions, although in themselves no violation 
of neutrality, where equal liberty is afforded to both belligerent parties 
to enlist men and purchase munitions of war, are certain to .lead at 
once to acrimonious discussions and ultimately to terminate in war, 
where the party suffering by them is in a condition to avenge itself. 
Neutrality consists in affording no greater advantage to one party 
than the other. There are many circumstances in which, although 
on paper either belligerent may have the right to levy troops in a 
neutral country, in reality but one only can profit by it. The late 
war between Great Britain and France on one side, and Eussia on the 
other, affords a striking example. The allies had complete command 
of the ocean, and could have transported any number of men, enlisted 
in the United States, without let or hinderance, to the Crimea ; the 
Russians could not have conveyed a man or a munition of war to the 
relief of Sebastopol. Our neutrality would, in that case, had we per- 
mitted enlistment, have only been nominal, and Russia would have 
had just cause to complain of our conduct. To this danger we should 
have been exposed had not the laws of 1794 and 1818 been on our 
statute-books. The continental governments of Europe have no oc- 
casion for such legislation ; because, with them the executive power 
can always control the movements of its citizens. In Grreat Britain, 
the Queen, in council, can always suspend the operation of the foreign 
enlistment bill, or prevent the shipment of arms, ammunition, or other 
military stores and equipments. This power I desire to confer upon 
the President when Congress is not in session. I do not attempt to 
conceal that it is a very grave, perhaps, in the hands of an indiscreet 
or unscrupulous man, a dangerous one ; but it is to be exercised under 
all the high responsibilities that attach to the Chief Magistrate ; and 
it is useless to disguise that, although the war-making power is given 
by the Constitution to Congress, any President can so conduct our 
foreign relations that Congress will have but to choose the alterna- 
tive of sustaining him or disgracing the country, in the eyes of the 
world. Besides, although my resolution is couched in general 
terms, and indicates no such limitation, I do not desire to confer on 



13 

nit 

,hs! President the power to suspend the laws, except in cases where 
•ictLial war exists between the powers, in reference to which the sus- 
|)en8ion is to operate, or when a civil war (and by this I do not mean 
a mere commotion or rebellion) shall have broken out in a foreign 
state or its colonies. When I made, four years since, a movement for 
the suspension of our neutrality laws, I believed, as I now believe, 
that a large majority of the people of Cuba was prepared to make a 
vigorous effort to throw off the yoke of their transatlantic oppressors, 
and, so far as my influence or councils could be useful, I was willing' 
to aid them. I believed then, as I now believe^ that a hostile feeling 
towards us then existed with the governments of France and G-reat 
Britain, and that they desired to Africanize Cuba. I avail myself, 
gladly, of the occasion to say that such, I am satisfied, is not now the 
feeling of these governments. Besides this, the people of Cuba, 
although still desirous of peaceful annexation, are not willing to run 
the risk of civil war and servile insurrection, to become members of 
our confederacy. Public policy must accommodate itself to circum- 
stances, and any attempt to obtain Cuba, except by negotiation, 
should, in my opinion, now be abandoned. But should Spain be rash 
enough to invade Mexico, with the purpose of establishing a despotic 
government there under the name of Santa Anna as dictator, or under 
any other name or title, then I think that our citizens should be 
permitted to take part in the contest. I wish this to be done legally. 
All the power of the government cannot restrain them from doing it, 
and there should be no law on our statute book that cannot be en- 
forced. There are many contingencies, about which I do not choose 
to speculate, where the interests of the country would clearly call for 
the suspension of our neutrality laws ; and if this power be not given 
to the President, under such restrictions as the wisdom of Congress 
may suggest, I am not prepared to say that I would not prefer to 
abolish them altogether, excepting so far as they may be* necessary to 
carry out our treaty stipulations, and these, as I have before remarked, 
only apply to the fitting out of armed vessels. I have little hope of 
the passage of such a law as I have suggested. I have no pride of 
opinion on the subject, and if I fail, shall be satisfied with the convic- 
tion that I have done my duty in calling the attention of the Senate 
and the country to the subject ; and it may be proper to state, in con- 
clusion, that in presenting and advocating my resolution, I speak only 
for myself, and act without concert or understanding with any one. 

The amendment offered by Mr. Slidell to the report from the Committee on Foreign Kc-. 
latlons by Mr. Mason, is as follows : 

Resolved, That it is expedient that the President of the United States be authorized during 
any future recess of Congress to suspend by proclamation, either wholly or partially, tlie 
operation of an act entitled "An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain 
crimes against the United States, and to repeal the acts therein mentioned," approved the' 
20th of April, 1818, and of an act entitled "An act in addition to the act for the punish-' 
ment of certain crimes against the United States," approved the 5th of June, 1794, should, 
in his opinion, the public interests require such total or i^artial suspension ; such suspension 
not to exceed the period of twelve months, and the causes which shall have induced the 
President to proclaim it to be communicated to Congress immediately on its first meeting 
thereafter. 

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Kelations be instruced to bring in a bill in con- 
formity with the foregoing resolution. 



REMARKS 



HON. JOHN SLIDELL, OF LOUISIANA, 

ON THE BILL 

TO ADMIT KAIN^SAS AS A STATE INTO THE UNION. 



DELIVERED DURING THE NIGHT SESSION, MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1858. 



Mr. SLIDELL said : The protracted debate on this exciting qnestion is now drawing to a. 
close, and I hope that wc shall very soon come to the final vott;. The discussion has been 
so generally participated in by senators ; every point, material or immaterial, has been so 
thoroughly investigated, that were I disposed to offer an elaborate argument I could not 
hope to say anything that has not been anticipated by tliose witli whom I concur, if not in 
all their premises, at least in the conclusions at which they arrive. But I owe it to myself, 
if not to the State which sent me liere, to give, as I shall do very briefly, the reasons tliat 
■will control my vote. I shall enter into no details, if for no other motive, because I have 
not the presumption to suppose that at this late hour I could command the attention of a 
wearied Senate. 

I vot€d reluctantly for the bill that passed this T)ody in February, 1856, by the vote of 
every democratic senator, hot that I did not heartily approve the ]>rinciple on which it was 
based, but becarise I was opposed to admitting any new Statt; until it had attained at least 
the population which is established as the basis of representation in the other house. I 
yielded that point, as I am always prepared to yield on any question of expediency, to the 
opinions and wishes of the majority of those with whom I am politically associated, and 
especially to the judgment of the senator from Illinois, whom wc were all then proud tO' 
recognize as our leader and champion. 

I shall vote for the admission of Kansas with the Lecompton constitution, not that I now 
have or ever have hud any strong hope that slavery will be permanently established there, 
but because I feel myself bound to discharge in good faith the obligations which I assumed 
in 1854 and 1856, and liecause, should she now be refused admission, I know that, whatever 
may be the pretext, the real motive is that .she has presented to us a constitution recognizing 
slavery. Some rare excei)tions in either House may be found of membei-s honestly ca.sting- 
their votes against her admission on other grounds, but if that admission be now refused 
the existence of shuery will be the dctemiining cause, and such will be the imanimoxis 
interpretation of the South. We of the slaveholding States can have no reliance for safety 
in the future but on stern, uncompromising adherence to the absolute, unqualified principle 
of non-intervention on the part of Congress in the question of slavery. In this case we 
are the more imperatiwly called upon to insist upon the application of this doctrine, because 
we are contending only for the abstract principle, while our opponents ^vill probably enjoy all 
the umnediate party advantages resulting from the admission. It is this circumstance which 
makes the coiu'Se of our opponents more offensive to us : with us it is a point of honor — ^we are 
struggling for the maintenance of a principle, baiTcn it is trae of present practical fruits, but 
indispensable for our future protection — one which we are detennined never to yield. You 
are not willing, even, that Kansas shall become a free State, unless you can at the same time 
inflict a gratuitous iasult on the South. In this I am assuming to be correct the assertion 
so repeatedly and confidently made, and Avhich, in fact, fonns the staple of nearly all the 
aagumcnt and declamation which we have heard almost daily since the meeting of Congress, 
that a vast majority of the people of Kansas arc opposed to the existence of slavery within hci 



15 ^ 

limits. If, then, she he relused admission because it nominally and temporarily exists there, 
what may Ave expect when application shall be made by a State of which it will be a real and 
enduring institution ? The scale of political prepondcrancy is constantly gravitating with 
increased rapidity in favor of the free St;xtes. If even now they are disposed to treat us with 
tH)ntumcly and injustice, what may we expect when we shall be comparatively weak and 
defenceless ? As yet we have abimdant means to protect ourselves from aggression ; and if 
tlie issue is to be made in our day or that of om- children, it is wiser and safer for us to make 
it now. But we are assured that there is no reason for our apprehensions ; that there is no 
considerable party at the North disposed to interfere with slavery in the States. No one 
who ha,s observed the couise of things here will place the least confidence in these assever- 
ations. They are constantly falsified by the votes of senators, and, as they gather courage 
from success, by their delil.)eratc declarations, they now throw off the mask which has here- 
tofore disguised their purposes. I will cite a very recent instance : A bill was reported from 
the Committee on Foreign Relations to pay from an unexpended balance in the treasury a 
sum of money to certain persons for Avliom it had been received in trust, under a provision > 
of the treaty of Ghent, for slaves carried oft" by the enemy in the last war with Great 
Britajn. On what ground A\as it opposed by the senior senator from New York ? On the 
ground that the proof of loss and ownership was defective, or that the fund was exhausted .'' 
No ; on the broad, naked ground that the senator would never by his vote recognize the 
right of OAAHiei-ship of man in man. His name is consequently found recorded in the nega- 
tive Mith those of eveiy senator of his party present, with the single exception of the senator 
from "Wisconsin who sits furthest from me, [ISIr. Dooi.irr]:^.] The same senator from New 
York still more recently said : "I expect to see this Union stand until there shall not be the 
footstep of a slave imjiressed upon the soil that it protects. ' ' Now, without being disposed 
to make indiscreet inquiries as to the age of that senator, I may fairly infer, from the large 
sj)ace he has so long filled in the public e}e, that he camiot want more than ten to fifteen 
yeai-s to attain that temi which the inspired Psalmist has given as the ordinary allotted 
l>eriod of human life — three-score and ten. Tire senator expects to live to see slavery totally 
abolished in every State and Territory of the Union — that is, within fifteen years. He, of 
couree, will not pretend to say that the slaves will be voluntarily emancipated in that brief 
interval. Congressional legislation and the strong arm of Executive poAver must be brought 
to Ixiar to eftect such results ; and I presmne that the senator only awaits the admission of 
a few more free States to initiate his plan of operations. Had these 'declarations been made 
by any other senator, I should have paid but little attention to them, but coming from his- 
lips they are peculiarly significant. He is "facile princeps,"- emphatically the chief of the 
iibolition party, or, as they please to call themselves, the republican party. He always 
weighs well his Avords, and knoAvs the full import of them ; is invariably courteous and 
i-cspectful in his language and deportment, and carefully abstains from saying anything 
l>ci-sonally offensive to southern men. It is this very moderation of manner that renders 
hun the more dangerous enemy. What he says he Avill act up to, should his party obtain 
the ascendency. Let us hear no more, then, of our rights lieing respected by that senator 
and his associates, if ever they shall find themselves in a majority in both branches of Con- 
gress, with a President of their choice. 

The State Avhich I have the honor in part to represent is, from the character of her jwpu- 
lation, her peculiar geographical position, eminently conservative ; the Union has on this 
floor no more devotetl adherent than I am ; in this, I obey not only the dictates of my in- 
dividual judgment and feelings, but faithfully reflect the sentinients of a vast majority of 
the people of Louisiana. But it is the union of the constitution, the union of States, having 
equal rights and privileges — that is the Union to Avhich my allegiance is due, which I have 
sworn to support, and to Avhich I shall ever be found faithful. I have not belonged to the 
ultra school of politics. Some, indeed, of my constituents, if asked, would perhaps be dis- 
posed to question the entire orthodoxy of my State-rights principles, as not being quite as 
advanced as theirs. This, hoAvever, we Avill not dispute about. I am willing to be judged 
by my acts, if unfortunately the time for action shall arrive. But let me tell senators on 
the other side, be the shades of opinion among us Avhat they may, that in Avhatever may 
touch the rights or honor of the South, she Avill present an undivided front to resist en- 
croachment, be the consequences Avhat they may. As to the slang phrases with which our 
ears are constantly regaled here, of slave-drivers, slaA'e-breeders, traftickers in human flesh, 
&c., &c., they excite in us no other feeling than contempt ; they are only AA'orthy of considera- 
tion insomuch as they may be supixjsed to express the feelings and pander to the passions of a 
majority of the constituents of those who employ them. A mere looker on would observe 
no excitement here or among our people at home ; he would, perhaps, be surprised to find 
that there Avere no popular meetings, no indignant speeches, no menacing resolutions. You 
misconstrue our calmness. The time Avas when declarations such as I have cited from the 
s<'nivt.or from New York avouKI have caused a general cry of angry defiance. We noAv listen 
to tlicni with an apparent apathy, Avhich you, perhaps, mistake for indifference. It is tliis 



16 

very coolness which, if it were understood, would most alarm that portion of our northera 
brethren who really love the Union. It is the quiet, fixed, determined puipose, not wast- 
ing itself in idle words, infinitely more portentous of evil than the most clamorous demon- 
strations. Admit Kansas by this bill and all agitation will cease. In a few short weeks 
the people of the North will marvel at the excitement produced by a question which to 
them has really no practical importance. How can it in any way affect their interests, that 
ti few hundred slaves shall be held by their masters in Kansas or in Missouri ? The abolition 
of slavery in Kansas would not give freedom to a solitary being. And in this connexion it 
will be an economy of time for me to say now, that I fully recognize the right of a State 
legislature, at all times, to call a convention of delegates of the people for the amendment or 
total change of an existing constitution, even although that constitution may contain provi- 
sions forbidding its amendment for a certain period, and establishing certain formalities and 
limitfitions for the exercise of the right. This right of the people of a State to be exercised 
through the majority of their legislature is, in my opinion, absolute and inalienable ; but were 
it not so at all times and under all circumstances, it is expressly gu:arantied to the people of 
Kansas by the second article of their bill of rights ; besides, I think that general principles, 
and the bill of rights apart by the very terms of the constitution, it may be amended at plca-' 
.sure until the last daj* of December, 1864. Entertaining these views, I am prepared to vote, 
wdth a mere verbal correction, for the amendment of the junior senator from Ohio, or for 
any other amendment of a simil ar., char Jij^^^v— not that I consider it in any degree necessary 
to guarantee the right of the people of iv-\^ y^ to alter and amend their constitution in their 
own time and in their own way, but because n may remove doubts and scruples on the part 
of others which I do not share. The amendment will not be in any sense a congressional 
interpretation of the constitution of Kan<<as, biit a mere declaration that it is not our pur- 
pose, even by implication, to impair or limit the rights of the people of that State, what- 
ever they may be — a surplusage dictated by an abundant caution, and to which no reasonable 
objection can be made. It hiis been suggested that this maybe considered as a compromise. 
If I thought it in any degiree, however slight, tlie compromise of a principle, it would not 
receive my aissent ; but I will not, from the fear of being charged with a disposition to 
oomproniise. withhold my vote from an amendment which some of our friends from the 
free States desire to sec incorporated in the bill. They have, in depite of popular clamor 
and of partisan denunciation, stood nobly by lis in support of our constitutional rights, and 
are entitled at our hands to every concession, short of a sin-render of principle, which they 
may ask of 41s. If we reject this bill the agitation gotten up by plotting and unscrupulous 
politicians, operating upon the passions and prejudices of the people of the free States will be 
prolonged and aggravated imtil a peaceful solution of this vital question of slavery will become 
impossible. We have every reason, so far as material interests are concerned, to be a united 
and harmonious people ; but we cannot shut our eyes to the melancholy fact that at this 
day there prevails between the masses of the people of the eastern and southern States as 
deep a feeling of alienation — I might say animosity — ns ever existed between England and 
France. The fate of this measure will iirobably decide whether this feeling shall be kept 
alive and embittered until longer continuance of a connexion so distasteful and repulsive to 
both parties shall be intolerable, or whether we shall strive by a generous emulation in the 
interchange of good offices, by an abandonment of all irritating' subjects of discassion, to 
become once more what we were in the infancy of the republic — States sisters in feeling as 
in name. What I have said of the consequences of the rejection of this bill is in no spirit of 
bravado or menace ; it is uttered more in sorrow than in anger and with a full sense of 
the responsibility which attaches to it. I anticipate the old clamor of treason and revolu- 
tion against all who venture to speak the truth on this question, but if it were not told 
now it might be too late to avert the danger that threatens the existence of a Union which 
m better days 1 was wont to believe would be perpetual. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




015 842 580 4 * 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

lllllilliillllil 

015 842 580 4 



